...I think this sums it up. It just seems like it used to be better around here... maybe that's just rose tinited glasses

I think it was very very bad when 4e came out, then eventually it got better but also there were fewer posters for a while. Now with 5e (I think) we are seeing more posters again, but less overall edition warring as a percentage of posters. But because the number of posters went up, then the number of edition warring posts went up despite the lower overall percentage of posts being edition warring relative to how bad it was when 4e came out.

best reply ever... I think this sums it up. It just seems like it used to be better around here... maybe that's just rose tinited glasses

Even before the 4e release, there was plenty of bickering over things like RAW and RAI, core and supplements, game balance and tons of other issues. 4e just added another (admittedly highly visible and influential) factor to differ around.

Honestly, it's the internet. The nature of the medium separates participants from tones and inflections, body language, easy clarifying questions and responses, and other factors in normal face-to-face conversation. Alienated from those factors, we interact on partial information at best. It's like communicating with a high-function variety of autism. Add in the tendency toward bad behavior when there's virtually no way to be held accountable and it can be a real cesspit (like a lot of forums quite a bit worse than this one). Autistic sociopath isn't very attractive or fun to interact with.

It used to be much, much worse. Back when 4E was released it was really unpleasant. It's like a stroll in a nice garden in comparison now. Mainly because people became sick to death of the constant edition wars, every major forum banned them, communities started to recognise it and self-policed. These days, if I see edition warriors strutting their stuff, my first thought is "In 2015? Really, dude? Partying like it's 2008, eh?"

It got pretty bad during the D&D Next playtest as well. What to include, what not to include, the infamous "damage-on-a-miss" debates that required an entire subforum. The playtest also seemed like it inspired a resurrection of all the older hot topics like alignment debates and such.

Really, it seems to pop up whenever a new edition is on the horizon or just debuted. "hat of d02" anyone?

I think the inference was ownership in an ideal sense, as in somehow Pathfinder is the embodiment of "true" D&D, therefore they own, or are custodians of "real" D&D.

This is funny. If the OSR movement proved anything, it was that the spirit of D&D is owned by NO ONE. It belongs to those that play it and keep it alive, no matter what the cover of the box or the book says. A company can own IP and trade dress, but not the spirit of the game.

This is funny. If the OSR movement proved anything, it was that the spirit of D&D is owned by NO ONE. It belongs to those that play it and keep it alive, no matter what the cover of the box or the book says. A company can own IP and trade dress, but not the spirit of the game.

Sure. That's not really saying anything, though. "Spirit" is a nebulous word. Nobody can own the "spirit" of a sports car or a battleship or a telephone, either! It's not a thing, it's a concept. Nobody owns the spirit of anything.

I think a lot of you guys do not realize how much some people felt let down by WotC when 4e came out. Sure it is just a game, but brand loyalty is something special. Betray it and you'll get someone who will stay bitter for a long time.

Sure. That's not really saying anything, though. "Spirit" is a nebulous word. Nobody can own the "spirit" of a sports car or a battleship or a telephone, either! It's not a thing, it's a concept. Nobody owns the spirit of anything.

Yup. That's why ownership of "the true embodiment of D&D" was so funny.

I've said this before but one thing that often gets missed is that a lot of "edition wars" are started by accusations of edition warring. There's a fine line between outright bashing an edition of the game and its adherents and making distinctions about the differences of the various editions, and this line is different for everyone.

It is also interesting how when "meta" discussions about edition warring occur, they are invariably about other people who edition war. It is like people at a party having a conversation about those party-goers who are ruining the party for everyone else, but those party-goers are never to be found. In other words, all of us--to varying degrees, and some far more than others--participate in the "edition wars." Another analogy is pollution; yes, some pollute (far) more than others but we're all polluting! (Unless you live completely off-grid, if such a thing is possible).

All that said, I don't mean to detract from the OP's point. I hear that and commiserate. All I can say is, to riff off Morrus, party like its 2015 and not 2008! And, for the love of your-deity-of-choice, don't feed the trolls/warriors! Best to ignore and move on.

It happens with everything. I read up on some of the theories behind the psychology behind it; basically, if you invest in something, you need affirmation that you made the right choice. To that end, you'll actively persuade others that you made the right choice, and if they made a different choice then they made the wrong choice. The amount of emotion attached to these value judgements is, I agree, quite astonishing at times.

The same principle lies behind gossip and badmouthing people, which everyone is guilty of to some extent (at worst, you'll get a reality TV show starring YOU and all the bad crap you say about others). People like to feel validated in their decisions and feelings, and getting someone else to agree with that decision or feeling is a form of validation that makes it "okay."